Machines translations

21 Dec Machines translations

Let’s talk about the future of translations. We do not wish to predict but try to objectively analyse situations in which using machines could be an advantage.

Let us think back to that famous chess game between the supercomputer Deep Blue and the world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Back in 2007, Deep Blue became the first machine to beat the then current world champion. Today, the question whether a translation machine can be as strong and reliable to beat its human competitors, is raised.
Speed of thought
Just like Deep Blue could analyse impressive 200 million positions in a second, translation machines can produce translations faster than any human – translator. When it takes a lot of time to accurately translate a text, the machine can find the translation in its memory base in just a few seconds. It does not mean provided translations are completely correct, they are primarily the result of the search of the database built within the system, which is often made from human translation memories. However, the speed of retrieving translations from the memory is in itself reason enough to give the machine an advantage over humans.
Lack of human errors
If you were wondering how a computer could beat the greatest chess player in the world, let us tell you that it was Kasparov who made a mistake in the deciding game. As the old Serbian saying goes, working people are bound to be make mistakes. Tired translators may read the word “contact“ as “contract“ and fail to notice the mistake because they are in a hurry to honour the deadline for delivery. Obviously, machines do not make those mistakes which gives them an advantage over humans.
Inefficiency is a human trait
While Deep Blue was 100% focused throughout the whole game, Kasparov wasted time thinking and listening to irrelevant things when his concentration was down. Inefficiency and procrastination are not traits of the machines, while external distractions and lack of knowledge can often lower translators’ efficiency. For example, if a translator gets up every hour to get a glass of water or eat while working on a translation, it can be considered a waste of time. Environmental factors and physiological needs can reduce work productivity by a few hours.
Nevertheless, regardless of all stated advantages, why do we want to replace people with robots? Things can be done more efficiently, more easily because of automation, but at the same time the process is more boring. On the other hand, people do not tend to do things automatically. The nature of human creativity is not in algorithms, it is the result of both logical and illogical reasoning.